alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      10,541,253
<SECURITIES>                                12,201,247
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,731,195
<PP&E>                                       4,175,199
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,282,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,642,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,073,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,787
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,342,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,642,529
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,009,311
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,610,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,601,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,601,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,601,281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011204EN.01000202.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-50/08) (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority)

2011/C 204/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Applicant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Ivanov and E. Petranova, Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Republic of Latvia (represented by: L. Ostrovska, K. Drēviņa and J. Barbale, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Veres and M. Fehér, Agents), Romania (represented by: C. Osman, A. Gheorghiu, A. Stoia and A. Popescu, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 45 EC — National legislation making access to the profession of notary and its pursuit subject to a nationality requirement — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — Scope of the exception relating to activities connected with the exercise of official authority — Requirement of direct and specific connection with such exercise

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, Romania, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, Romania, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Belden & Blake Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the undersigned:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: August 10, 2004                    /s/ Robert W. Peshek
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Robert W. Peshek, Senior Vice President
                                         and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q and shall not be treated as having
been filed as part of the Form 10-Q.

                                       25
##### 



Exhibit 10.9
 COMMUNITY BANK OF TRI-COUNTY  RETIREMENT PLAN FOR DIRECTORS  (As amended and restated effective January 1, 2007)
  ARTICLE I  Definitions
     Participant's
    
    Participant'sFull Years of Service
    
    Benefit PercentageLess than 5
    
    
    0
    %5 to 9
    
    
    33-1/3
    %10 to 14
    
    
    66-2/3
    %15 or More
    
    
    100
    %




---



##### 



Merger:
 Acquisition of Significant Share Ownership:
 Change in Composition of the Board of Directors:
 Sale of Assets:
       2




---



##### 



Participant's
    
    Participant'sFull Years of Service
    
    Benefit PercentageLess than 1
    
    
    33-1/3
    %1
    
    
    66-2/3
    %2 or more
    
    
    100
    %
  ARTICLE II  Retirement Benefits
  3




---



##### 



ARTICLE III  Disability Benefits
 st
 ARTICLE IV  Death Benefit_
   4




---



##### 



ARTICLE V  Deferred Compensation
  st st
  st
 th
   5




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI  Source and Form of Benefits
   ARTICLE VII  Assignment
  ARTICLE VIII  No Retention of Services
  ARTICLE IX  Rights of Participants
  ARTICLE X  Automatic Cash-Out Upon a Change in Control
  6




---



##### 



ARTICLE XI  Reorganization
  ARTICLE XII  Amendment and Termination
  ARTICLE XIII  Governing Law
  ARTICLE XIV  Headings
  7




---



##### 



ARTICLE XV  Gender
  ARTICLE XVI  Interpretation of the Plan
  ARTICLE XVII  Legal Fees
  ARTICLE XVIII  Effective Date; Section 409A Compliance
   8
# C_2022109EN.01000402.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-881/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Approximation of the laws - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII - Provision of food information to consumers - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive 2000/36/EC - Point 2(c) of Part A of Annex I - Cocoa and chocolate products - List of ingredients of a food intended for consumers in a Member State)

(2022/C 109/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tesco Stores ČR a.s.

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator, when labelling products marketed in the territory of a Member State, is exempt from the obligation to list all the ingredients constituting a compound ingredient, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of that regulation, only if that compound ingredient, which is the subject of a sales name under Part A of Annex I to Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption, is designated in the list of ingredients using that sales name, in the language version of the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---
**EXHIBIT99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

**I,  Todd E. Wille,Chief Executive Officer of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”), do herebycertify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:**

 

**(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theRegistrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and**

 

**(2)  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.**

 
| **Dated:  March 10, 2003** | **/s/  TODD E. WILLE**                  |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                       | **Todd E.  Wille   Chief Executive Officer** |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                               AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("AMENDMENT") is made
and entered as of January 1, 2000 by and between DISABILITY REINSURANCE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and James T.
Fallon (the "Executive").

         WHEREAS, CORE, INC. ("CORE"), the Company, the Executive, and others
who held capital stock in the Company are the parties to a certain Capital Stock
Purchase Agreement dated as of August 31, 1998 pursuant to which, INTER ALIA,
CORE purchased all of the shares of capital stock of the Company held by the
Executive (the "the Stock Purchase Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, in connection with the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Executive
entered into a separate Employment Agreement with the Company, dated as of
August 31, 1998 (the "Employment Agreement"), providing for, subject to the
terms and conditions set forth therein, the continued employment of the
Executive for a certain Term (as defined therein); and

         WHEREAS, the Executive is now willing to expand the duties the
Executive is required to perform under the Employment Agreement in exchange for
CORE's payment, prior to the time scheduled therefor, of certain Additional
Consideration (consisting of shares of CORE common stock and subject to certain
restrictions on the transfer thereof) under the Stock Purchase Agreement.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set
forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged by both parties hereto, the Company and the Executive hereby
agree as follows:

1. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2 OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. Section 2 of the
Employment Agreement, entitled "DUTIES," is hereby amended by inserting at the
end of said Section the following:

         "In addition to the foregoing duties, the Executive, together with the
         other Managing Directors of the Company, shall market and sell to
         existing Company clients and other middle market insurance carriers
         CORE's WorkAbility products, including WorkAbility products revised and
         enhanced to better serve the middle market insurance carriers."

2. AFFECT ON OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. Other than as set
forth above, the parties are not amending or revising any other provision of or
continuing obligation under the Employment Agreement.



<PAGE>



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on
March ___, 2000 to be effective as of January 1, 2000.



DISABILITY REINSURANCE                              EXECUTIVE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.


By: /s/ George C. Carpenter IV                      /s/ James T. Fallon
    ---------------------------                     ----------------------------
Title: Vice President                               James T. Fallon









                                       2
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


 












EXTENSION AGREEMENT


EXTENSION AGREEMENT dated as of December 6, 2016 between Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. (the "Company"), a Delaware corporation, and Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Sr. (the "Consultant") effective as of January 1, 2017 (the "Effective Date").


Recitals:


The parties entered into a Consulting Agreement dated as of November 4, 2015, which was amended as of July 20, 2016 and as of September 19, 2016, (the "Agreement"), under which the Consultant provided consulting services to the Company.  The Agreement currently continues in effect through December 31, 2016.  The parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement through June 30, 2017, as provided in this Amendment.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants set forth herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:


1.          Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the termination date of the Agreement to June 30, 2017.


2.          Promptly after the date of this Amendment the Consultant will work with the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company to establish the specific duties and objectives to be undertaken by the Consultant during the remaining term of the Agreement, which shall be communicated by the Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee for review and approval.


3.          The parties acknowledge and agree that all of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of the Agreement shall hereafter continue in full force and effect in accordance with their terms, except to the extent amended, modified or revised herein.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above.







STRATA SKIN SCIENCES, INC.

















By:  /s/ David K. Stone                                                  /s/Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Sr.


David K. Stone, Chair                                            Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Sr.


Nominating and Governance Committee
22846

#### State v. Chee

Affirmed
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 3 December 2008 – RSA Security Ireland v Commission**

**(Case T-210/07)**

Action for annulment – Common Customs Tariff – Issue of binding tariff information – Power of the national customs authorities – Non-actionable measure – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 12(1)) (see paras 48-56, 64)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for the annulment of a decision allegedly taken by the Commission and communicated to the applicant by email of the Irish Revenue Commissioners of 30 March 2007 concerning the classification of goods under a certain heading of the Combined Nomenclature. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | RSA Security Ireland Ltd is ordered to pay the costs. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          28,109
<SECURITIES>                                     7,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,814
<INVENTORY>                                     46,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,400
<PP&E>                                          73,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,851
<BONDS>                                         12,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,168
<SALES>                                        131,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,132
<CGS>                                          126,794
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,668
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (43,933)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,933)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.32)
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRA DON PARTHEMORE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, CA Director of

Corrections; ROSEANNE CAMPBELL,

Warden-Mule State Creek Prison; J.A.

MILLIMAN; PARNELL GALLOWAY,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-16417

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02026-MCEGGH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 10, 2010 ** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Ira Parthemore appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We

FILED

AUG 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16417

review de novo summary judgment. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th

Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against

defendants Tilton and Campbell because Parthemore did not raise a triable issue as

to whether these defendants, in their supervisory capacities, either failed to

adequately supervise the handling of his initial agency appeal or implemented an

unconstitutional policy. See Edgerly v. City of and County of San Francisco, 599

F.3d 946, 961 (9th Cir. 2010) (a supervisor may be liable for failing to adequately

supervise); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009) (a supervisor

may be liable for implementing an unconstitutional policy). Likewise, Parthemore

did not raise a triable issue as to whether Tilton and Campbell failed to adequately

investigate his appeal. Rather, Parthemore simply disagreed with their decision to

rely on the medical staff’s recommendation that he was physically capable of

performing a porter’s work. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)

(difference of opinion does not constitute deliberate indifference).

Similarly, the district court properly concluded that Parthemore did not raise

a triable issue as to whether defendant Galloway was deliberately indifferent. Dr.

Galloway recommended to prison officials that Parthemore perform only light
3 09-16417

duties. The fact that Parthemore would have preferred medical unassignment or

work as a clerk does not raise a triable issue. See id.

Summary judgment was also proper as to Parthemore’s Eighth Amendment

claims against defendant Milliman. Parthemore did not raise a triable issue

regarding Milliman’s treatment of him because even if Parthemore’s allegations

regarding Milliman’s conduct were true, such conduct does not rise to the level of

deliberate indifference. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.

2004) (setting forth deliberate indifference standard).

Parthemore did not raise a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act

to the district court and has therefore forfeited this issue on appeal.

AFFIRMED.